Scientific Proof of God?

[BEAKER]

...I sound nutty enough as it is..

Sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don't. Thanks for the compliment Smoken Joe:hihi:

[C1ay]

http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com/georgefile.html

 

Whatchall think?

Such news should be submitted to an appropriate news reporter.....

[Rincewind]

http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com/georgefile.html

 

Whatchall think?

I think the opening paragraph on that page says it all for me. As soon as I read something along the lines of "... has stirred much controversy and confusion..." when attached to a "new theory" my bullsh** alarm starts ringing right away.

 

Then when the links are to "... a SIMPLE summary of the theory which can be understood by the average college level reader..." I wonder why I'm not referred on to the published original; is it because the author of the page doesn't want me to see that the actual research doesn't really support his contention?

 

I don't think I'll bother reading that page. Maybe you have a link to the original study, however?

 

That's whatIall think. :circle:

[Rincewind]

Such news should be submitted to an appropriate news reporter.(links to The Onion)....

Wouldn't Fortean Times be more appropriate?

[C1ay]

Wouldn't Fortean Times be more appropriate?

Maybe, then again it might give it more credit than it's worth since it struck me as a classic work of fiction.

[paultrr]

If God is truly God, and the Bible is truly the inpired word of God.

 

That's the center of the whole question and debate in the first place. Does God really exist and is the Bible the inspired word of God. For most of us the historic evidence on the Bible does not fare well with supporting either literlism in its interpretation or for it being that accurate as far as history goes. That causes us to question the whole inspired notion in the first place. On that issue I would not see it as anymore inspired than any other religious book. Thus, I reject the second part of that equation, so to speak.

 

As to the whole God issue I find the lack of evidence speaking to only one logical conclusion: either the God who started it all is exactly like Einstein's somewhat loose version of a creator or there is no creator outside of nature itself. Noting else by logic and scientific research is possible. The first type of God is little different from say us starting a small BB in some lab and that universe evolving off on its own after that point. Such a creator might exist. But he or she or them have little to do with my daily life and prayers to such would only amount to making me at best feel better. The second type of God is purely impersonal. We are also part of it and as such the best way to deal with Mother Nature is to learn how she works in the first place which leads one back to science.

 

As to what we might one day learn the same could go back to the believer who spent his whole life believing in something that they discover in the end was false. Either way its pure speculation since you are alive and by the Bible's own words only at best know in part. Boil it all down and faith is not logic derived. It rests upon something one cannot use logic to prove. Its a trust and a hope based upon something unseen and without the observing its beyond science's ability to prove or disprove. I trust what I can see and observe and test. You trust the unseen. If evidence alone could answer that question about later on in the end I'd say its the hard core believer that would be in for a surprize.

[bumab]

As to the whole God issue I find the lack of evidence speaking to only one logical conclusion: either the God who started it all is exactly like Einstein's somewhat loose version of a creator or there is no creator outside of nature itself. Noting else by logic and scientific research is possible. The first type of God is little different from say us starting a small BB in some lab and that universe evolving off on its own after that point. Such a creator might exist. But he or she or them have little to do with my daily life and prayers to such would only amount to making me at best feel better. The second type of God is purely impersonal. We are also part of it and as such the best way to deal with Mother Nature is to learn how she works in the first place which leads one back to science.

 

A third type: A God who does not meddle with the laws of nature, and let's consequences of our actions go their natural way. Thus, no evidence for God in a material sense of the word (beyond existance in the first place)- the universe was not "made in his image." But a God who interacts with humans through immaterial things- the mind, the will, things that cannot be explained in a materialistic fashion. If you were to look for evidence of God, shouldn't you look at things "made IN his image" ?

 

:circle:

[paultrr]

A third type: A God who does not meddle with the laws of nature, and let's consequences of our actions go their natural way. Thus, no evidence for God in a material sense of the word (beyond existance in the first place)- the universe was not "made in his image." But a God who interacts with humans through immaterial things- the mind, the will, things that cannot be explained in a materialistic fashion. If you were to look for evidence of God, shouldn't you look at things "made IN his image" ?

 

:circle:

 

That in itself is part of the problem. The God portrayed in the Bible tends to be one with human traits as far as that evidence would go. If the type of God being portaryed has human traits its just as simple to expect that such a God is simply the product of the human mind to begin with than the other way around. Besides, at the very least one hallmark of the Biblical story of Christ is not a God letting natural consequences of our actions take their own course.

 

Basically, the third type is little different from Einstein's God in the first place and not much of a God as far as our actions go to place any faith or trust in to begin with. Why trust a God who does not actually care what the eventual outcome is? The whole idea behind faith is that of some sort of reward in the afterlife irrespective of the religion. In eastern thought one ascends to a higher order escaping the cycle of life and death. In the Christian religion by faith one is saved from eternal damnation. Faith in the third type of God provides what? Except perhaps peace of mind that in the end run perhaps there will be some sort of judgement and perhaps my good acts out weigh the bad. Sounds more like the system Christ came to do away with by the story. Might as well go sacrifice some chickens or goats or better yet, sell them at the temples. Oh, that too was covered under the Bible wasn't it? I'd say the third choice isn't much of a choice at all. If that's the only alternative I'll stick with my lack of faith in anything except mother nature itself.

[bumab]

In the Christian religion by faith one is saved from eternal damnation. Faith in the third type of God provides what? Except perhaps peace of mind that in the end run perhaps there will be some sort of judgement and perhaps my good acts out weigh the bad. Sounds more like the system Christ came to do away with by the story.

 

True. You misunderstood me (probably my fault). Being "saved from eternal damnation" is an incorrect perspective, I think, although one commonly protrayed. Many theologians (Lewis for example, or even Dante, if you can call him a theologian) simply see eternity as a "get what you want type thing." Those in "hell" want to stay- they chose to prefer a isolated, singular, prideful (i don't need God) attitude in life, so in eternity, they live apart from God. Fair enough. "Salvation" means getting what you were made for, not getting out of something you deserve.

 

But that's a theological discussion, not for this site, I don't think.

 

But remember, just because you prefer something doesn't make it correct. I'd prefer many things to the reality we live in, but hey, them's the breaks, apparently. I was attempting to point out that looking for evidence of God in nature is a bit silly. I don't expect to see evidence of Van Gogh in his paintings (disregarding signatures). Anybody can smear paint on canvas, heck- paint could fall on canvas and produce art randomly, if enough paint fell over time on enough canvases (ha! being a little facitious).

 

I would expect to find evidence of God where he said to look- in people. Our free will, for example. You can argue it doesn't exist, but if it does- powerful evidence of a diety.

[paultrr]

 

I would expect to find evidence of God where he said to look- in people. Our free will, for example. You can argue it doesn't exist, but if it does- powerful evidence of a diety.

 

Free Will, can and does exist. But if there is no evidence such violates any law of nature then such is not evidence that God exists. For one, Christianity is not the only source of such.

[Aemeth]

Btw, the smartest cat i know told me to read that, it wasnt just some random link..

 

Same guy who wrote this > http://www.ayhja.net/Forum/viewtopic.php?t=214 (not trying to "advertise", just showing a post..

[C1ay]

Btw, the smartest cat i know told me to read that, it wasnt just some random link..

 

Same guy who wrote this > http://www.ayhja.net/Forum/viewtopic.php?t=214 (not trying to "advertise", just showing a post..

If you think you have a cat that talks and posts messages on the internet you may have already found your God....

[[email protected]]

Is God Real? Does God Exist?

 

If you truly want proof of God, you'll find your way here. When life gets really hard and you find yourself saying, help me God, you want to have confidence that He's listening.

 

http://spamlink removed

 

Goodbye spammer......